Welcome to Gaia! ::


Floppy Member

Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


Agreed, and it makes things problematic again during the exchanges with theists who want to adhere to the notion that atheists actually DO believe in (their version of) a god but reject the god itself for whatever reason their religion teaches, when what is really being rejected by the atheist is the claim that god exists in the first place.

The person you're describing is still a theist, however, and not an atheist at all. They are just an irreverent theist.

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Aporeia
Rumblestiltskin
Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


...It doesn't complicate the matter at all. Maltheists, for example, are theists...they just hate the god they believe in. If you believe in a god, reverence towards that god is irrelevant to whether you are a theist or not.
Until you try to define a god and a spirit separately.


A/theism is just about belief in "god"...a spirit is irrelevant.

Shameless Mystic

The Legendary Guest
Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


Agreed, and it makes things problematic again during the exchanges with theists who want to adhere to the notion that atheists actually DO believe in (their version of) a god but reject the god itself for whatever reason their religion teaches, when what is really being rejected by the atheist is the claim that god exists in the first place.

The person you're describing is still a theist, however, and not an atheist at all. They are just an irreverent theist.
I wouldn't call them a theist because, to them, the being they acknowledge as existing is not revered. It's not a god to them. That subjective separation is important because without it, we'd be calling everything, animate or not, a god- someone, somewhere, worships it.

Liberal Lionheart

8,525 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Mark Twain 100
Logic Not Included
Infamy In Action
My 5am Rant

How often I hear this.... burning_eyes By definition, if you don't believe in any gods, you ARE an atheist.
What. No. That's stupid. There are many, many religions who do not have a deity, and are not atheist.
It's normal to be in denial about it considering the negative stigma that accompanies the word in our society, but by owning up to the word and just being your wonderful self, you are helping resolve the issue.
One again, lack of belief of a god doesn't automatically place you in the category of atheist. By that logic a man who only knew of Christianity rejecting Christ would be an atheist. He could easily fall into any of the other religions, but by not knowing any, and rejecting all the gods he know of, you say he is an atheist. There is a logic flaw there.
Society is afraid of what it doesn't know and atheists are a minority, so nasty stereotypes arise and names are called. But when you own up to it, the next time your friend's parents ask you whether you want a little chinese or mexican for dinner, your friend can go "Hey! Adam is an Atheist, he's actually a really nice guy and he does NOT eat babies!" (Yeah, your friend is an idiot. And kinda racist. But it can't be helped.)
Wha--
For one outing someone as an atheist is counter productive. It makes the person seem weak for not doing it themselves.
Two, why the hell would hey even insinuate that Adam eats babies. That's just stupid.
Lastly, saying atheism is a minority, so nasty stereotypes arise is a logic flaw. Nasty stereotypes arise regardless of the popularity. True that since less people are atheist, that there are less people to refute the claims, but by no means do a lesser popularity spur hate.


"But I'm still spiritual."
There are a ton of spiritual atheists. More than you think. Spirituality and Religion do not have to mean the same thing. Some atheists are very new-agey and believe in more than just what is physically presented to us, they just deny the god factor.
To avoid confusion I'll use blue. Yet again, just because someone isn't what you are doesn't mean they fit in a counter-category. You can't use someone's claim for not being something as a means for being something.
"I'm not gay because I like the other gender."
Using your logic - "A lot of gay people like the other gender."


"But I don't believe in nothing..."
And you don't have to. There is something much bigger than you or I and that's humanity. Mosts Atheists I know are secular humanists. They put their faith, community, and charity into the world and the people inhabiting it no strings attached. So no, "Hey, we'll build this school for your village, but remember our specific God is the only reason we're doing this." (I could rant and rant about mission trips, but later.)
This is actually the first thing I found to make sense, but they way it's put is hard to follow. True that atheists don't believe in nothing, but that's because it's illogical to believe in nothing. By existing, you are proof that there is something. That be a god, or aliens, or literally anything you want to believe, but EVERYONE believes in something. Unless of course, you're one of the people who believe that us existing is proof we don't, but that's a circular logic rabbit hole you don't want to fall down.

"But I can't PROVE that some god doesn't exist..."
If you can't find any proof for a god, but know you can't flat out deny that there may be one more than you could deny the existence of an invisible pink unicorn that silently follows you everywhere you go, you are an agnostic atheist.
I think you want to re-write this one. About midway through you just lost me.

"I don't believe, and generally couldn't care less about the debates or politics."
Hello, Apatheist! Apathetic atheists weren't fooled by the smoke and mirrors they pulled out at church and just don't care about changing minds. In my experience, most Atheists are apathetic up until someone's religious belief's impede on someone else's civil and human rights, at which point they become a Militant Atheist fighting on the front lines for change.
I have a problem with this one. Just because someone doesn't care about religion doesn't mean they are something they don't claim to be. But, i'm not here to offend so i'll wrap this up.

For all you TL;DR folks, you shouldn't place people into groups based on stereotype and bias. If someone identifies as non-atheist you can't just say they are because they fit the bill. Religious views are subjective, and as much as I appreciate that you want to help people find who they are, what they are may not be what you say they are.


Those religions are full of atheists, brother.

If he believes in any other omnipotent being despite his knowledge of only one that is widely accepted, he's theistic.

Every part of that scenario was completely a joke.

Not a counter-category, a sub-category. Basically the point is that no matter how the person puts it, if they don't believe in a god, they are indeed an atheist. They would just be a type of atheist.

Usually when someone says that, they mean it as "but I'm not a cynic! I see a point!"

Here's another analogy. "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2009/01/the-teapot-analogy/55930/

An apatheist is an atheist not because the don't care for religion, but because they're an atheist. "I don't believe, and don't care..." was the title of that section.

One's reluctance to be classified doesn't mean they don't fall into a classification. Of course it's just the technicality of it. Anyone can and should call themselves anything. I never suggested otherwise.

Shameless Mystic

Rumblestiltskin
Aporeia
Rumblestiltskin
Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


...It doesn't complicate the matter at all. Maltheists, for example, are theists...they just hate the god they believe in. If you believe in a god, reverence towards that god is irrelevant to whether you are a theist or not.
Until you try to define a god and a spirit separately.


A/theism is just about belief in "god"...a spirit is irrelevant.
rolleyes

That just flew right over your head, didn't it?

Define the concept of a god without using synonyms (divine, deity, etc), then define spirit. They better be different definitions.

Floppy Member

Logic Not Included
Yet again, just because someone isn't what you are doesn't mean they fit in a counter-category.


Please explain how you gathered this from her post. She is right. Take Buddhists, who maintain beliefs about afterlife and ritual without believing in a deity. They are de facto atheists, regardless of spiritual beliefs.
Quote:

You can't use someone's claim for not being something as a means for being something.


Yes you can, in the instance that there are only two options. A whole integer is either even or odd. If it is not odd, then it must be even.

Quote:
"I'm not gay because I like the other gender." Using your logic - "A lot of gay people like the other gender."


This is an inapt analogy, thus it's not only not logical, it's offensive. Human sexuality does not resemble an abstract concept like faith in a deity.

Quote:
This is actually the first thing I found to make sense, but they way it's put is hard to follow.


I didn't think so. What made it difficult for you?

Quote:
True that atheists don't believe in nothing, but that's because it's illogical to believe in nothing. By existing, you are proof that there is something.


That would be the humanity she's talking about.

Quote:
That be a god, or aliens, or literally anything you want to believe, but EVERYONE believes in something.


Everybody does not, however, believe in a higher power of any sort, or things of that nature, like gods or aliens.

Quote:
Unless of course, you're one of the people who believe that us existing is proof we don't, but that's a circular logic rabbit hole you don't want to fall down.


She didn't even imply such a thing. Why are you bringing it up as though she did?

Quote:
I think you want to re-write this one. About midway through you just lost me.


It's a good description of agnostic atheism. What caused you to get "lost" and why should her manner of expression be rewritten to suit you personally?

Quote:
I have a problem with this one. Just because someone doesn't care about religion doesn't mean they are something they don't claim to be.

And what might that problem be? An apatheist who does not believe in gods is still an atheist, whether or not they claim to be.

Quote:
But, i'm not here to offend so i'll wrap this up.


You've already managed to offend, whatever your intent may have been. Just putting that out there.

Quote:
For all you TL;DR folks, you shouldn't place people into groups based on stereotype and bias.


Are you asserting that the OP is placing people into groups based on stereotypes and/or bias?

Quote:
If someone identifies as non-atheist you can't just say they are because they fit the bill.


If they do not believe in gods, they're atheists. An whole even integer cannot be odd. It does not work that way.

Quote:
Religious views are subjective, and as much as I appreciate that you want to help people find who they are, what they are may not be what you say they are.


While this is all acceptable, the notion that there is a middle-ground position is simply incorrect. If a person does not wish to identify as one or the other position, the fact remins that one or the other applies to them, even if they refuse to admit it.

Floppy Member

Aporeia
The Legendary Guest
Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


Agreed, and it makes things problematic again during the exchanges with theists who want to adhere to the notion that atheists actually DO believe in (their version of) a god but reject the god itself for whatever reason their religion teaches, when what is really being rejected by the atheist is the claim that god exists in the first place.

The person you're describing is still a theist, however, and not an atheist at all. They are just an irreverent theist.
I wouldn't call them a theist because, to them, the being they acknowledge as existing is not revered. It's not a god to them. That subjective separation is important because without it, we'd be calling everything, animate or not, a god- someone, somewhere, worships it.


Then you and I must have different definitions of what a god is. In polytheistic religions like Hinduism, there are many gods, yet not all of them are revered by individual worshipers. That is what I am talking about. If you believe such a being is a deity, you believe in a god whether or not you worship that deity. Reverence is not the operative term as far as I see it.

Floppy Member

Mei tsuki7
Define god. The issue with this entire debate on theism vs atheism vs agnosticism is that god or gods is extremely subjective and I'm not just talking about the different religious incarnations of deities. Two people may believe in the same thing but one person could call themselves an atheist and the other could call themselves a theist based on if they call that thing a god or not. Which basically makes this entire debate asinine and not worth anyones time.


Such as pantheism, perhaps? They believe that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god, therefore they hold a belief in god. The atheist does not acknowledge that same everything as a god, therefore lacking belief in god.

This crucial difference in how other people see their world is neither asinine nor a waste of everyone's time, although you are certainly free to see it that way and withdraw from the discussion.

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Aporeia
rolleyes

That just flew right over your head, didn't it?


No, it didn't. "Spirit" is irrelevant when we're talking about god claims, which are the only thing that a/theism is referring to.

Quote:
Define the concept of a god without using synonyms (divine, deity, etc), then define spirit. They better be different definitions.


No...I don't believe either exist, and I also find that the people who do believe they exist don't have a definite definition...however, the two are not the same thing, people can believe in only one, both, or neither...and a/theism is only talking about a belief in god claims...not spirit claims.
Rumblestiltskin
Mei tsuki7
Define god.


Irrelevant. An actual definition of god may be impossible to begin with, but that's irrelevant to whether a person has a belief in a god or does not have a belief in a god.

Quote:
The issue with this entire debate on theism vs atheism vs agnosticism


Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive from a/theism...It is only mutually exclusive from gnosticism.

Quote:
is that god or gods is extremely subjective and I'm not just talking about the different religious incarnations of deities. Two people may believe in the same thing but one person could call themselves an atheist and the other could call themselves a theist based on if they call that thing a god or not.


....Okay...and? There are people who believe that nature is god, which would make them theists, but not labeling nature god doesn't mean that the person doesn't believe in nature. What you're talking about is entirely plausible, but does nothing to demonstrate an actual point to counter what OP is talking about.

Quote:
Which basically makes this entire debate asinine and not worth anyones time.


I don't think it is, but if you do, why are you talking about it if you find it "asinine" and "not worth anyone's time?"


That's false. It's extremely relevant seeing as it makes everything subjective.

That has nothing to do with my point and I was explaining it in a way that most people talk about it. I know the differences between them. But that's irrelevant to what I said.

I never said that not labeling something god makes a person not believe in that thing. My point is very clearly illustrated. What a person calls themselves is intrinsically irrelevant. What they BELIEVE is what is at least moderately important if you care about such things.

Because maybe I want people to stop debating about these labels like they're anything important and focus on actual important things.
The Legendary Guest
Mei tsuki7
Define god. The issue with this entire debate on theism vs atheism vs agnosticism is that god or gods is extremely subjective and I'm not just talking about the different religious incarnations of deities. Two people may believe in the same thing but one person could call themselves an atheist and the other could call themselves a theist based on if they call that thing a god or not. Which basically makes this entire debate asinine and not worth anyones time.


Such as pantheism, perhaps? They believe that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god, therefore they hold a belief in god. The atheist does not acknowledge that same everything as a god, therefore lacking belief in god.

This crucial difference in how other people see their world is neither asinine nor a waste of everyone's time, although you are certainly free to see it that way and withdraw from the discussion.


I'm not saying people's BELIEFS are asinine or a waste of everyone's time. I'm saying discussion on these terms is which makes such a discussion irrelevant to basically everything. Then there's also the fact that you should never try and force a label on anyone in any way for that just pushes people into a box they may not like.

Shameless Mystic

Rumblestiltskin
Aporeia
rolleyes

That just flew right over your head, didn't it?


No, it didn't. "Spirit" is irrelevant when we're talking about god claims, which are the only thing that a/theism is referring to.

Quote:
Define the concept of a god without using synonyms (divine, deity, etc), then define spirit. They better be different definitions.


No...I don't believe either exist, and I also find that the people who do believe they exist don't have a definite definition...however, the two are not the same thing, people can believe in only one, both, or neither...and a/theism is only talking about a belief in god claims...not spirit claims.
Not only is what you believe irrelevant to this discussion, you continue to avoid my challenge...
Rumblestiltskin
Aporeia
rolleyes

That just flew right over your head, didn't it?


No, it didn't. "Spirit" is irrelevant when we're talking about god claims, which are the only thing that a/theism is referring to.

Quote:
Define the concept of a god without using synonyms (divine, deity, etc), then define spirit. They better be different definitions.


No...I don't believe either exist, and I also find that the people who do believe they exist don't have a definite definition...however, the two are not the same thing, people can believe in only one, both, or neither...and a/theism is only talking about a belief in god claims...not spirit claims.


Except that spirit and god CAN be the same thing if you believe everyone is intrinsically divine due to our divine spirit.

Shameless Mystic

The Legendary Guest
Aporeia
The Legendary Guest
Aporeia
Theism/Atheism becomes complicated on a point in which an individual believes in a god(s) existence, but shows no reverence.

It is a strange, and distinct viewpoint, but one that exists, regardless.


Agreed, and it makes things problematic again during the exchanges with theists who want to adhere to the notion that atheists actually DO believe in (their version of) a god but reject the god itself for whatever reason their religion teaches, when what is really being rejected by the atheist is the claim that god exists in the first place.

The person you're describing is still a theist, however, and not an atheist at all. They are just an irreverent theist.
I wouldn't call them a theist because, to them, the being they acknowledge as existing is not revered. It's not a god to them. That subjective separation is important because without it, we'd be calling everything, animate or not, a god- someone, somewhere, worships it.


Then you and I must have different definitions of what a god is. In polytheistic religions like Hinduism, there are many gods, yet not all of them are revered by individual worshipers. That is what I am talking about. If you believe such a being is a deity, you believe in a god whether or not you worship that deity. Reverence is not the operative term as far as I see it.
Kind of a bad example, because Hinduism is a special case. At any rate, I'm not talking about polytheists who revere a pantheon, and focus on one in particular. I'm talking about other branches of mysticism that contain people who believe in the existence of a god(s), but are wholly non-reverent, or even maltheistic.

Sparkling Man-Lover

12,250 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Sausage Fest 200
  • Tooth Fairy 100
I am an agnostic atheist and I am also a Satanist. I do understand the frustration. A lot of atheists are not eager to call themselves 'atheists'....even if that is what they are. It can be out of fear of stigma or a number of other reasons.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum